Serge Cardin

[Employment Insurance Act, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her intervention.

When I spoke at the beginning of the week, I forgot to mention something. September 14 marked my 11th anniversary as an MP and I wanted to say that I am proud to represent the people of my riding. I am ready to represent them for as long as necessary and I am ready to fight in this House for justice, particularly with respect to employment insurance.

Before being elected, I was an accountant. I was self-employed for more than 20 years. I had people working for me and my clients were employers and employees. Over the years, I saw the deterioration of the unemployment insurance system, as it was then called. I was upset by that. I thought that we should establish an employment insurance system—that was the term I used—to help the unemployed return to the job market quickly and regain their dignity.

Over the years, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, I watched the employment insurance program deteriorate. I also saw some people take advantage of the program. They were employees who sometimes even conspired with their employers. I saw this going on.

Observing all this, I said to myself that there was a big problem with the government. These things are easy to spot. Rather than dealing with those who defraud the employment insurance system, be they employers or employees, it was attacking the system.

Today, it is still not uncommon for those who have lost their jobs, who find themselves unemployed and in a really difficult situation, to almost be perceived as crooks trying to defraud the system. But there is no need to defraud the system today because, quite often, it is the system that prevents the unemployed from collecting employment insurance benefits. Based on all the changes that have taken place over the years—it has not been all that long—and the different regions with varying rates of unemployment, people do not receive the same benefits or have the same period of coverage.

I remember something that happened in my riding a few months or perhaps a year ago. People living in Sherbrooke and working in Magog, some 30 kilometres away, commuted morning and evening, racking up extra transportation costs. When the Magog company closed its doors, the people who lived in Magog, which was in a different administrative region, received additional benefits for a longer benefit period. Some of the Sherbrooke workers had a hard time even qualifying, and those who did qualify received lower benefits. But they had all worked at the same place. Some had even spent more of their own money just to get to work.

It looks like the system needs a complete overhaul, particularly given the current economic situation, the unemployment rate and, above all, data from the OECD suggesting that the unemployment rate will probably reach 10%. But the government has chosen temporary fixes and is trying to look good by making a lot of noise about how it is going to give unemployed workers additional weeks, when some have not even collected one red cent yet.

Basically, I cannot be against the fact that people will be able to receive additional weeks of benefits. But I seriously wonder why the government has introduced this measure. It is likely just a bit of political window dressing, to tell unemployed workers that they can receive five to 20 additional weeks of benefits if they have worked for a very long time, they have not received benefits and they have paid premiums without getting anything in return. Yet there are people who have paid into EI who are not receiving anything today. We have seen this in the forestry industry. We are also seeing it among seasonal workers.

When I look at that, I seriously wonder and I feel that something is not right. The first thought that comes to mind is that the government's inability to pinpoint the real problems, the real needs, the most urgent needs, is equalled only by its failure to address those problems and those urgent needs.

Earlier I mentioned that the system has steadily deteriorated. Take the POWA, for example. At one time there was a mechanism that allowed older workers to transition to a dignified, honourable retirement if, after working for a company their entire lives—35 or 40 years—they were laid off and offered the option to retrain. Some workers can be retrained, but not others. The government has not yet addressed this problem. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have done anything.

Now we have new measures that have nothing to do with what workers really need. Sure, the Conservatives added five weeks of benefits at the end of the regular benefit period, clearly in the hope that the economic situation would improve. But people need those benefits now. When you lose your job, you need help right away, not necessarily at the end of your benefit period. If only there was at least a longer benefit period. But even then, there would have been no need for the extra five weeks.

I do not know what these government representatives must feel when they see the unemployed workers. But I do not think this government is doing everything it can to make the EI system fairer and more accessible to everyone. I do not think there are people who wake up in the morning and say they cannot wait to be laid off so they can take advantage of the employment insurance system. First of all, no one wants to be laid off to go onto EI. Everyone knows the state it is in and who has access to it.

I am being told that my time is almost up, but I would like to add two things, in particular about the sharing of information among different departments. Again, we can see how the government has been acting. When the Bloc Québécois initiated sessions to identify individuals who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and who were not receiving it, we would have liked information from the Canada Revenue Agency to be accessible by the old age pension system. Thus, after filing their income tax return, someone who is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement could easily receive it. The government made billions of dollars off this. In fact, for several years, it did not give information to people and it made billions of dollars by taking money from the employment insurance fund.

Now, it is a matter of sharing information. The government did not want to integrate the systems at the time, and today, it is prepared to get information from each of them. You know very well that public servants are overwhelmed on employment insurance issues. It takes more and more time for people to get their benefits, and now we want to overload the system for a short period of time to go way back to collect information. This would be yet another temporary measure that does not solve the problems with EI and would cause more work for public servants.

The Conservatives should have listened to the Bloc's recommendations. Then they would have been better prepared to meet the urgent needs of unemployed workers.

[Agriculture, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec consumers could find an uninvited guest on their plates next summer, with the introduction of a new, highly genetically modified corn called SmartStax. Health Canada has authorized this GMO without conducting any analyses.

Yet eight new genes were grafted onto this GMO, including two that produce herbicides and six that produce insecticides. The government has shown complacency on this issue by putting financial considerations before the health of the public.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for mandatory labelling of GMOs and for more in-depth studies on these products. Here is one more file where the Liberals and Conservatives are in lockstep with the multinationals.

[Canada-US Relations, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the issue with the United States does not necessarily have to do with the Buy American Act, but with the President's economic stimulus plan, which requires municipalities and states to use only American products to be eligible for the federal program, which automatically eliminates competition from companies in Quebec and Canada.

Does the Prime Minister plan on taking advantage of his meeting with President Obama to ask him to relax the rules of this program, so that companies here can continue to offer their products as part of the program?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She cares deeply about human rights, and when it comes to foreign affairs, she puts a lot of emphasis on international development assistance.

Earlier, in my speech, I spoke about a Conservative member who mentioned that in Colombia, international assistance was very important, and was improving the situation in the country, and that this free trade agreement would make things even better.

Even when it comes to international assistance, Canada acts with its own interests in mind. Since there are not many investments or investors in Africa, Canada has taken this money and sent it to South American countries so that South American countries, Colombia in this case, will be tempted to sign such agreements, since the government is providing international assistance as well as protection for investors in Colombia.

I would like to know whether this is how my colleague sees this.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 14th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that the House is currently debating an NDP subamendment to a previously proposed Bloc Québécois amendment.

The Bloc amendment referred to the Conservatives' disdain for the democratic process with respect to the review of this free trade agreement. We were in Colombia from May 11 to 14, 2008, where we met with people, groups, civilians, unions, business people and displaced people resettled in small towns. They all told us their stories. The subamendment conveys the Bloc Québécois and the NDP's opposition to this agreement, a position shared by human rights defence organizations.

The Conservatives, and even some Liberals, have said the most absurd things. Basically, they say that doing business with countries whose social conditions, labour conditions and environmental conditions are not up to par will automatically make things better. But it will be anything but automatic. In many cases, as in this free trade agreement, it is not about trade per se, but about protecting the investments of Canadian corporations, particularly mining corporations with underdeveloped senses of responsibility operating in those countries.

The parliamentary secretary for international trade recently said that about 100 Canadian mining companies are involved in some 200 projects, many of them in Colombia. Let us not forget that we have talked about social responsibility and mining companies right here in the House. There can be no doubt that most of the mining companies claiming to be Canadian are actually foreign companies operating through Canada because this country does not hold its mining companies accountable for their activities abroad. This free trade agreement is much more about protecting investments, and we all know that protecting investments, chapter 11 style, means placing companies' interests ahead of people's interests.

The Conservatives are saying that everyone agrees with this free trade agreement. Perhaps they are not following what is really going on. Just look at all the groups that oppose this free trade agreement. In Canada alone, many civil society associations oppose this agreement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, the Public Service Alliance, Lawyers Without Borders, communications unions, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

Many stakeholders from Colombian civil society also oppose this agreement. Three of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I met with the Coalition of Social Movements and Organizations of Colombia, a meeting that was arranged by that organization. I would remind the House that that organization is made up of the National Organization of Indigenous People in Colombia, the Popular Women’s Organization, the National Agrarian Coordinator, Christians for Peace with Justice and Dignity, and the National Movement for Health and Social Security.

We were able to personally meet many stakeholders during our travels to Colombia in May 2008.

While we were in Colombia, the government said it had signed this agreement in principle with Colombia. We had not even completed our consultations. We had not yet submitted our report or made any recommendations, which were supported by the opposition parties and clearly said that an independent organization needed to be formed, one that would be able to assess any progress made over time in the area of human rights and able to say if there had been any real improvements significant enough to allow us to officially sign the free trade agreement.

The Liberals agreed. They have since changed their position. They are leaning more heavily in favour of economic development, perhaps to the detriment of other social, labour or environmental considerations.

Not everyone in Colombia is in favour of this. I mentioned the organizations from civil society. Some Colombian senators are also against this free trade agreement. Senator Robledo, among others, is against it. He says straight out that Colombia’s experience so far with free trade has been damaging and has led to a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, the impoverishment of many Colombians, and the denationalization of the country. He says that its free trade agreement with the United States amounts to an imperialist re-colonization reminiscent of Colombia’s historic relations with Spain.

He takes a similar view of the agreement between Canada and Colombia. In a CBC documentary broadcast in March 2008, Senator Robledo expressed his opposition to the free trade agreement, which in his view gives multinational corporations the same rights as Colombians, and even greater rights.

He has also criticized some of the direct foreign investments in his country, including gold mines operated by Canadian corporations. In January 2009, he published an article on the behaviour of Colombia Goldfields, a Canadian transnational corporation that opened and then abandoned a mine in Marmato, Colombia. There is no need to tell the House that the environmental effects were still evident. So there was no corporate social responsibility.

This free trade agreement exists more, therefore, to protect corporate investments. The Conservatives have just told us that we had to get there first, before the United States, or we would lose market share. I do not know where they get their figures, because our trade with Colombia has increased. Since 1999, Colombia has become a larger trading partner, especially as a market for Canadian exports. Over five years, exports of Canadian goods to Colombia increased by an average of 18% a year, while the general average growth rate was 4.9%. Without a free trade agreement, merchants and business people are able to do well in Colombia on a company or individual basis, without affecting human rights, labour rights or environmental rights.

The Conservative member said that a lot of money was being invested. We know. The Conservative Party is greatly reducing our international aid, in Africa for example. It is turning to the South American countries and encouraging them to sign free trade agreements with Canada.

The Conservative government’s position is therefore very self-interested. We should have proof of continual, lasting improvement. Last June at an international labour union conference, we were told that it was a snow job. The Colombian government has conducted a huge marketing campaign, probably with the indirect assistance of the Government of Canada, to give the impression that things are improving. Nothing is more misleading, though, than when they say here that the number of assassinations of union leaders has decreased.

I do not recall any such assassinations in Canada.

Even here though, as a result of the Conservatives’ lack of effort, our social programs also leave something to be desired sometimes.

[Forest Industry, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lawyers are using statements on loan guarantees made by the Prime Minister and his ministers in this House to undermine the case Canada's lawyers are trying to make in the London tribunal, which is that the loan guarantees are absolutely legal.

Would it not have been a better idea for the government to do and say what its own lawyers are proposing, and give loan guarantees to the forest industry rather than back up the U.S.?

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, any securities commission, be it the Autorité des marchés financiers or any other, must obviously remove as many irritants as possible for all those with whom it does business. We understand that. That is not the biggest issue today. The federal government wants to interfere in areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. Can that issue be settled once and for all?

They pretend to practice open federalism. It is more of a conquering style of federalism since they want to control everything. And what does it change if we have 13 securities regulators in Canada? There are also two nations in Canada. Once of them wants to have control over areas under its jurisdiction and to manage according to its way of doing things, which is unique to Quebec. We want to keep this area under our jurisdiction and regulate securities through the Autorité des marchés financiers. We have the ability, the competence and the expertise to do it, and the desire to continue doing it. We are telling the federal government to mind its own business.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his comment.

Of course, when an organization such as the Autorité des marchés financiers, which used to be called the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec, regulates the market and registers companies at the stock exchange, its first concern is to protect the interests of investors. It is obvious. To say that a single Canada-wide commission could solve all the problems is a deceptive statement. Such a commission would not be a panacea.

As long as we will have regulating systems such as the ones regulating financial products, attempts to circumvent the rules will be made. It is somewhat like computer science nowadays. Even if you invent something to keep undesirable people away from computer systems, those people will come up with something else. It is a perpetual motion. There must be a refinement, a change of processes and of regulations. Quebec has proven that it is able to make adjustments to protect the interests of investors and the interests of its population, as far as the economy in general is concerned.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to congratulate all my colleagues who have spoken, all these men and women who are the only ones truly standing up for Quebec in this House.

Today's remarks by the Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse and by a number of Liberal members from Quebec who will not even venture to vote on this motion crucial to Quebec are further proof. It is also very important for my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska and myself to point out that I will be sharing my speaking time with him. I did not want to steal the floor from him and prevent him from speaking on such an important motion.

Let us go over this motion quickly to ensure that the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec fully appreciate the weight of responsibility associated with voting against this motion. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, securities regulation falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that, therefore, the federal government should reject, once and for all, the idea of creating a single securities regulator for all of Canada, thereby respecting the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec.

As I said earlier, when the National Assembly of Quebec speaks with a single voice, it is 125 Quebec MNAs saying no. They are contending that this is an area which falls under Quebec's jurisdiction and they want to protect the system which has been in place for many years and is working well.

That is why the 49 Bloc members who are here to defend the interests of Quebec are also speaking out against this Canada-wide securities commission.

As I indicated, the National Assembly is unanimous. Securities fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I also mentioned earlier that two provinces have come out and said that they wanted to keep their own securities regulators. Establishing a common regulator would jeopardize the very survival of trading in Montreal and promote financial market concentration in the Toronto area.

I do not know why the Conservative members, including those from Quebec, continue to say that this is the best thing to do, when the World Bank and the OECD find that the current system works well, that it is efficient and effective. Efficiency and effectiveness do not mean quite the same thing. The Conservative Party is living proof of that. It is not effective and not efficient. Efficiency means doing things well, and effectiveness means doing good things. It does not know how to implement good things and when it does, it is not effective.

Some Conservative members have told us from the start of the day that the Bloc did not understand the economy. History, however, will confirm what I am going to say. For years, the Bloc alone has said how there would be a surplus, how things would react and what the increases in economic development terms would be. If all of the policies proposed by the Bloc Québécois had been implemented, we would not be in this crisis today in Canada and especially in Quebec.

Without pretension and with no offence to the humility of the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, our finance critic today, or that of those who preceded him, either Paul Crête, who left this House to represent us in the National Assembly, or Yvon Loubier— they are all competent individuals who know the economy—I would refer to the hon. member for Markham—Unionville. I am sure everyone knows he was the chief economist at the Royal Bank between 1994 and 2000. He was a professor of economics at McGill and at the Université du Québec in Montreal and a professor at Simon Fraser and the University of Manitoba. Since 1976, this kind gentleman has called himself an economist. During all that time, what did he do when he was speaking to students or to heads of business? Did he never say this was a matter of Quebec's jurisdiction? Did he ever wonder if it could be changed by this government? Some have been talking about it in strong terms for 40 years. In 2003, the issue was revived. The Government of Ontario went so far as to do studies in support of its arguments for a single commission.

This afternoon, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville told us there is a legal uncertainty. Our arguments are based on the fact that this is a Quebec jurisdiction and that the system is effective and works well. The hon. member said that there is some constitutional uncertainty over whether or not this jurisdiction belongs to Quebec and the provinces. As a result, the Liberal Party will abstain. That is totally absurd. The Quebec Liberal members are going to abstain. As the old dictum goes, “Silence is consent”. In other words, silence signifies consent to the government’s policy of a single, Canada-wide securities commission. That is contrary to the interests of Quebec and to the responsibilities assigned to it and to all the provinces. It jeopardizes everything. We must face up to this because Ontario’s intentions are clear: it wants only one regulator. It did not participate, however, in the passport system. It is purely in its own interest, therefore, that Ontario wants a single, Canada-wide securities commission in opposition to Quebec and other provinces such as Alberta and Manitoba.

As things currently stand, the securities commissions of Quebec and the provinces can speak before the International Organization of Securities Commissions. The Constitution says that securities are a jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces, which are therefore all entitled to appear directly before the International Organization of Securities Commissions without any intermediaries. Quebec and the provinces must preserve this right to speak on the international scene. We do not want it to become like Quebec’s seat at UNESCO. As we said before, it is more like a folding chair or even an ejection seat. If we do not agree with the federal government, we no longer have the right to speak.

The Conservative members are solidly in favour of the Canada-wide securities commission. I am talking mainly about Conservatives from Quebec. The Liberal members from Quebec are going to abstain. Some members will vote for Quebec’s economic priorities, values and savoir-faire, and some would rather not. As we have already seen, the Montreal stock exchange was sold to Toronto. An English Canadian was made president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. There have also been cuts to the not-for-profit organizations with an economic mandate. The Government of Canada is mounting a direct, frontal assault on Quebec’s economic interests. We have to stop it because the situation in Quebec and even in some other Canadian provinces is being seriously undermined.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse accused us of having no vision and of creating crises. He said that only the Conservative government has the big picture. There is one thing that he has difficulty understanding. Even if he says the Conservative party has a vision, I believe that some Conservative members from Quebec do not have a vision for Quebec. Fields of jurisdiction, self identity, and the desire to help corporations mean nothing to them.

There are 125 members in the Quebec National Assembly. Unanimously, they said “No.” Alberta and Manitoba also said “No.” How can he claim to be the only one who understands the needs of all Canadians? Even though he comes from Quebec, he appears not to understand them. The Liberal party will give its support by abstaining from voting on the fact that the Constitution recognizes this is a field under Quebec’s jurisdiction. They would refer it to the Supreme Court. We know they are like the Tower of Pisa; they always lean to one side only.

Why do the Conservatives claim they can do this when they know very well that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government?